Tuesday, March 16, 2010

In an interview on MSNBC yesterday, JD Hayworth made MSNBC's liberal Rachel Maddow look like she hadn't done her homework and was merely repeating poorly researched DNC talking points. First, she asked him why he was running for office considering he had received the most money of any Congressman from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Hayworth responded and said he'd only received $2250 total from Abramoff, which he returned to charity after he'd learned about Abramoff's ties to corruption. In contrast, he noted that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee among others had received MORE money from Abramoff than that. (the logical conclusion to that from Maddow should be, then why are they still around?)

Hayworth also said that Abramoff never came to his office, and never lobbied him. Maddow still didn't give up, and said that Hayworth's own Chief of Staff admitted Hayworth had received over $150,000 from Abramoff. Hayworth told Maddow her researchers must not be doing a very good job, since even the New York Times has printed a retraction about that. Hayworth added that contributions he received from Indian tribes - which he also returned - are different than money from Abramoff; the tribes are sovereign entities that do what they want. Hayworth pointed out that McCain, who chaired the Senate investigation that looked into Abramoff, never mentioned Hayworth once during the entire investigation. So it's a bit fishy that McCain is trying to tarnish Hayworth with a connection to Abramoff now.

Next, Maddow accused Hayworth of unethical behavior by throwing fundrasiers in skyboxes belonging to Abramoff at sporting events. Hayworth responded and said his staff thoroughly researched the legality of doing so, and when they couldn't determine the answer, Hayworth contacted the Federal Election Commission and asked them. The FEC determined there was no problem. Consequently, no charges were ever brought against Hayworth by the FEC or any other entity.

Maddow then asked Hayworth about an accusation the McCain campaign has been using against him, voting for a bill that contained earmarks, a Bush transportation bill that provided funding for transportation infrastructure in Arizona. Hayworth explained that voting once for transportation infrastructure in Arizona (which is around the second fastest growing state in the nation), is a lot less worse than McCain's recent votes for numerous bailouts, where the money goes to grease the palms of special interests, banks, etc

Finally, Maddow asked Hayworth about something he'd said recently about gay marriage. Hayworth said on a Florida radio show that the way the Massachusetts Supreme Court had defined marriage in order to permit gay marriage could open the floodgates to all kinds of things, like marrying a horse. He said the Massachusetts court defined marriage too broadly, as an "establishment of intimacy." Maddow disagreed, and then read some wording from the court decision. The language all vaguely sounded like an establishment of intimacy, there was very little specificity in it that would preclude marrying a horse. Sorry Maddow, regardless of all the 2-line blog profanity-laden supportive comments and tweets coming from your supporters on the left who don't like JD, you lost this one.

although i thought rachel's position on the same sex wording was a little stronger,i agree the wording was vague enough that she shouldn't have argued with him that passionately. it was ambiguous and not inherently clear one way or the other.

I commend JD for going on the Rachel Maddow show as I KNOW that he recognized it as a hostile interview. It took courage to go there knowing you'd be attacked twelve ways to Sunday. The viewing audience of the Rachel Maddow show are a waste of time for him though. Number one, they are all progressives. No way any one of them would ever vote Republican anyway. Number two, her audience is extremely small. JD would do himself a favor by going on one of the Fox News shows instead. Fox News has much higher viewer rankings.

this woman has an agenda like most of the liberal media. she had no attention of doing a unbias interview. all she wanted to do was push her opinions and views via an interview with anyone conservative. this is so very typical of mainstream liberal media today. they have really become equivalent to the likes of the enquirer and people magazine. very sad.